Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 16 Feb 2022 20:54:23 +0100
From:   Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
To:     Chuanhong Guo <gch981213@gmail.com>
Cc:     linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, Rui Salvaterra <rsalvaterra@gmail.com>,
        Ilya Lipnitskiy <ilya.lipnitskiy@gmail.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linux-mediatek@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: ralink: mt7621: do memory detection on KSEG1
Message-ID: <20220216195423.GA17551@alpha.franken.de>
References: <20220211001345.3429572-1-gch981213@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220211001345.3429572-1-gch981213@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 08:13:44AM +0800, Chuanhong Guo wrote:
> It's reported that current memory detection code occasionally detects
> larger memory under some bootloaders.
> Current memory detection code tests whether address space wraps around
> on KSEG0, which is unreliable because it's cached.
> 
> Rewrite memory size detection to perform the same test on KSEG1 instead.
> While at it, this patch also does the following two things:
> 1. use a fixed pattern instead of a random function pointer as the magic
>    value.
> 2. add an additional memory write and a second comparison as part of the
>    test to prevent possible smaller memory detection result due to
>    leftover values in memory.
> 
> Fixes: 139c949f7f0a MIPS: ("ralink: mt7621: add memory detection support")
> Reported-by: Rui Salvaterra <rsalvaterra@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Chuanhong Guo <gch981213@gmail.com>
> ---
>  arch/mips/ralink/mt7621.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

applied to mips-fixes.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]